posted on February 1, 2002 08:48:49 PM
I particularly like the attitude of the contractor from Grosse Pointe Park, Mich. -- and where do they look for examples of the term "Let's Roll" being used commercially ? Why eBay of course.
posted on February 2, 2002 05:37:37 AM
Although I have the utmost respect and admiration for those on Flight 93 for their incredible bravery and sacrifice I don't think slang can be patented. I've been using that particular comment for many years-now I have to pay the Beamer Foundation or Abdullah everytime I use it? And what's with The Arab individual attempting to patent and make money with the phrase? Not a good move in this country at this time. A very brave and self-less group of Americans sacrifice their lives to save countless others and now one small phrase has become the battleground in this country. Greed wins again!!
posted on February 2, 2002 03:47:07 PM
I agree, I don't see this as being a phrase that can be trademarked very easily - It's a phrase that was somewhat common before September 11. I understand the Beamer foundation wanting to protect it, but everyone else who is trying to get in on this action are scum. I'm all for free-market and capitalism, but unchecked capitalism means you get rats in your sausage.
posted on February 2, 2002 09:53:13 PM
Judge Mills Lane claims to have a trademark on the phrase, "Let's get it on!" Better the Beamers trademark it than let it be used in a sleazy advertising campaign.
posted on February 3, 2002 10:10:00 AMRegardless, Todd Beamon didn't copyright this phrase.
Without Todd Beamer (?) there would be no "Let's Roll." No t-shirts, no posters, no buttons, coffee cups, bumperstickers or decals. There's never been a better argument for trademark protection.
posted on February 3, 2002 01:56:16 PM
You're right -- it is Beamer, not Beamon.
But yes, he said it. However, the media and American word of mouth are the ones that made "Let's Roll" into a rally cry. He just said what millions of Americans have said everyday or at least week in their lives.
To suddenly give his estate/foundation control of an everyday phrase is ludicrous. This is NOT a valid case for trademark protection. It's not his trademark. His name, his likeness, sure. But an everyday phrase? Hardly.
posted on February 4, 2002 02:09:02 AM
The phrase will not rise to Trademark protection.
The point is that everything imaginable has now become an object of commerce.
By the way- when I hear celebrities etc., complain or file law suits about people using their likness for profit, few seem to think that the press does this everyday.
Many think the "news" is supposed to be some non-profit bastion of information. It is not, it is a for profit business.
The truth is that EVERY media outlet made/makes money from the Beamer phrase and story as well as a host of others.
The "talking heads" on TV "news" make millions in salary, as well as millions in profits for their corporations.
I see no difference between some shmoo in Michigan selling tee shirts and Katy Couric and Larry King making millions doing essentially the same thing. Just because the "news" outlets make their money once-removed through commercials is a distinction without any real difference.
The "news" outlets made/make millions off tragedy, so why shouldn't anyone else ?
